lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The Theism/Atheism Discussion
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-04-2007, 05:31 AM   #81
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Alright. Put down your question again, all of them, and be as descriptive as you can, and I'll lay it all out for you, facts, sources, even if the best I can point to is some fiction in religious texts.
I respectfully decline your invitation to start over from scratch. You're more than welcome to pick up at post 118 on page 3. There are also a few lingering questions in post 123 earlier on this page.

I look forward to reading your responses.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 09:29 AM   #82
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Just a quick post because I have a bunch of appts today, and I just wanted to ask a couple questions more than anything else.

@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful.

@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard.
Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all.

Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined.
If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case?


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 11:31 AM   #83
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful.
Sorry. I guess I'm just used to academic standards. For the past decade, I haven't been permitted to cite anything that isn't peer-reviewed or less than 5 years old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard.
How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all.
As I pointed out earlier, some are insane. Others are just really devoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined.
Actually I have answered this completely. The problem that you cite is facism, not atheism. Your examples just happen to be Atheists. Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hitler isn't the gold standard for Catholic leaders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case?
Fine. If Religiosity is the standard, then something like the actions of Hitler can no longer be considered 'wrong'.

As you can see, that argument fails for obvious reasons. If we didn't have a "moral compass" that was independent of religion, then we would still be stoning people to death of working on the Sabbath, using the Bible to justify slavery, etc. Because we do, we opt to cherry-pick the parts the reinforce what we consider to be moral behavior. Until you can address this point (which I have brought up several times before), then I don't see how we can move forward.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 01:41 PM   #84
JediMaster12
Dum Spiramus Tuebimur
 
JediMaster12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buried in books...literally
Posts: 5,933
Current Game: Assassin's Creed
LFN Staff Member Veteran Fan Fic Author Contest winner - Fan Fiction Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
using the Bible to justify slavery,
Actually this has been done. I believe it is Joshua 9:20 that is the popular favorite. "The children of Ham turned black for their sins and shall be unto the rest hewers of wood and drawers of water. They shall be as servants unto us." I would think that this would be used to justify the slavery in particular the African slave trade. And these people who used this were God fearing people who believed in helping their neighbor, just not the ones who were physically different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?
It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way. As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior.

JediMaster12 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 01:44 PM   #85
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin.

After he left school he abandoned his faith (Michael Rissmann, Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96 ISBN 3-85842-421-8.).

Yes, in addresses to the Reichstag and in public, as on March 23rd 1933, he claimed Catholicism, but in private, he clearly held no such beliefs, and this was probably just another facet of what Ian Kershaw refers to as 'the Hitler Myth'. This was probably an attempt to placate the Christian churches into believing he still followed their moral codes.

Speer notes that Hitler asked why he was raised a Christian: "Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?". Hitler also seems to claim that it was the 'disintegrating effect of Christianity' that was solely responsible for the destruction of the Roman Empire. Goebbels noted in his diary that Hitler believed Christianity was a 'symptom of decay'. He regarded Christianity as a corrupted teaching of an Aryan, anti-semitic Christ (Steigmann-Gall, p. 257, 260).

He also, claimed not to believe in Christianity with 'its weak pity ethics', but rather, in a strong, 'active', perhaps militant God, with his somewhat odd 'positive Christianity'.

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." - Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. In a speech delivered on 12 April 1922, Munich

Catholic by birth, perhaps. But Catholic in belief? I think not.

Hitler, if we were to momentarily ignore everything I have said above, Hitler, by performing the atrocities he did, contravenes an absolute moral law that is laid down by Catholicism in pretty well every act of legislation, and in every major deed that he performed.

Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 02:48 PM   #86
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
Actually this has been done.
Yep. While liberals were using the Bible to promote Abolition, southern concervatives were using the Bible to refute it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior.
Pretty close. Life is suffering and acceptance leads to enlightment. Enlightenment makes happiness possible in the face of suffering. At least that's my understanding of the philosophy.

I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin.
I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?
Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.

My point has been to show that Mao, Stalin, and arguably Hitler are all red herrings. They are frequently paraded out to show how terrible a world of atheistic nations would be. Unfortunately, the true problem in these examples is fascism, not atheism. If someone would like to provide an example of atheism run amok that doesn't involve a fascist regime, I'd be more than happy to stand corrected.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 03:51 PM   #87
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
They're just doing what their Gods have told them to do.
Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another. To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy. I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found.

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another. Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another.

On Topic: I have the same view on Atheists that I have for any other person. It is their right to choose their own faith or lack there of. According to my faith it is not my job to judge anyone, but myself.

The only problem I have with Atheists or any other group is when they try to force their own beliefs on me or belittle my beliefs.

Personally I believe in god and I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in organized religion. I only believe in my own interruption of his word. I understand the bible was written by man and then translated by man, so personally I use it for guidance not as the final word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler
I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.
Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic. It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did.

Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways?


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 04:11 PM   #88
JediMaster12
Dum Spiramus Tuebimur
 
JediMaster12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buried in books...literally
Posts: 5,933
Current Game: Assassin's Creed
LFN Staff Member Veteran Fan Fic Author Contest winner - Fan Fiction Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?
The statement that Jae made about God being the standard. Ethnocentrism in general terms is the attitude that my culture and all the trimmings are better than yours. It is look that one person has on the world. Looking at Jae's statement I pointed out that it was ethnocentric purely from an anthropological viewpoint. As a Christian I somewhat hold this view but being more liberal and having a library full of pagan works I am more inclined to listen and in the mood for possible acceptance. Which is why I like some ideas of Buddhism and other religions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).
Again why I said the statement was ethnocentric.

JediMaster12 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 07:06 PM   #89
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
As for the subject of atheists not being criminals...

I actually read an autobiography of a atheist who was also criminal (a robber and a coke dealer, actually). He claimed that he basically did not believe in God, and saw it as useless. He basically did not believe in God, because he is a criminal (the problem of evil and all). The concept of God doesn't really help one surivie out on the streets, after all, and what use is praying to an invisible diety when you have to threaten to kill and harm others in order to live. In prison, he was known as "Satan", due to his disbelief.

[I got this from "Autobiography of Malcom X", which talks about Malcom X's life on the street before he went into prison and discovered the Nation of Islam, and later on in his life, Othrodox Islam.]

What I am getting at is that, well, the belief that atheism will get people to stay loyal to state and do moral behavior...may not actually work. Prehaps immoral people, like criminals, MAY embrace atheism, prehaps as a justification for their crimes.

Religion has nothing to do with if a person does crimes or not. It is all about the individual.
--
Quote:
discussion about Hitler
...Really, shouldn't someone be invoking Godwin's Law here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 07:26 PM   #90
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another.
Are you simply stating that you aren't familiar with the scriptures that I'm referencing or are you claiming that they don't exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy.
There are certainly some scriptures that promote such behavior. Unfortunately, such sentiments are only limited to a few books in the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found.
Too many to cite here I'm afraid. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible might be a good source for you. The "Cruelty and Violence" section has over 850 references. "Intolerance" has almost 550. Since those are closest to the topic at hand, I'd recommend starting there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another.
The Christian God on how to treat those of other faiths:
Quote:
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Deuteronomy 13:12-18
The Qu'ran on how to treat those of other faiths:
Quote:
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

The Cow 2:191
As you can see, these books do in fact not only condone but promote violence toward one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another.
Please see above as well as sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic.
I don't know how one would go about disproving another person's beliefs. How would you go about proving that I'm not really an atheist? How would I prove that you don't really believe in God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did.
I don't believe anyone here is condemning Catholicism becasue of Hitler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways?
Call me foolish, but I tend to take people at their word when it comes to their beliefs. If you tell me that you believe in God, I'm going to believe you. If you tell me that you worship the Greek pantheon, I'm going to believe you. Since religious people also lie and commit murder, I see no reason not to take them at their word as well.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 07:47 PM   #91
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
I think here is something, Achilles, that you have to realize.

WE define religion.

Not you. Us.

We are the ones that answer to our God. We are the ones that write and read our Holy Books. You cannot tell us what to believe, because we tell ourselves what to believe.

Quote:
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

The Cow 2:191
Here's an answer your own quote:

Quote:
[2:192] But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Right after the aytah that you quote. Basically, if you are being attacked, you have the right to fight back. When the other sects say, "You know what? I don't want to fight!" then you don't fight. Simple. Don't take things out of context.

It's basically an quote that justifies 'self-defense'. Better to fight against people who are enslaving you, then to consent to being enslaved.

We understand our own religion. And if we are "reading" our own religion wrong, well then, that is exactly what we are doing. So? Let us be accountable to our own God that, by the way, we invented! If we invented God, we can invent religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2007, 08:20 PM   #92
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 02:06 AM   #93
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Is this the article you're quoting, Achilles?

Quote:
Studies: Atheists Supply
less than One Percent
of Prison Populations
by Dale Clark

* Index: Atheism and Awareness (News)
* Home to Positive Atheism

Received July, 1997

It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about one-tenth of one percent. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65 percent were Catholics, 26 percent Protestants, six percent Hebrew, two percent Pagan, and less than one-third of one percent non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and one Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only four college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91 percent were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

A survey of Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and one Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-Christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and no unbelievers.

In the East, over 64 percent of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50 percent. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15 percent (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12 percent are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6 percent supplying 50 percent of the prison population.


Author Chaz Bufe responds:

This [last paragraph] is wrong. If he's going to subtract the women from the Catholic population, he necessarily has to do it for all other religious groups too. That would leave the Catholic percentage at 12 percent, not six percent.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 03:25 AM   #94
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
^^^^
I'm sorry, which quote are you referring to? I don't recall having seen that article before.

So I don't take up a post.... The percentage of atheists in prisons. I wanted to know where you found that stat. --Jae

Whoops, sorry. Just now seeing this. The data was provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Not sure if it's available online, although I'd be surprised if it's not.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-05-2007 at 05:09 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 03:45 AM   #95
REDJOHNNYMIKE
Destroyer of Burfday!
 
REDJOHNNYMIKE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Your liver... and a hobgoblin's jugular... simultaneously
Posts: 2,967
I know this isn't a complete study, but maybe you all will find this interesting and maybe see some connection to this discussion and gain something useable from it...
It is incomplete, so if you can finish it then please do so in whatever manner you choose, so that I may understand how you tick.

I am disappointed in this discussion in general, quote-tag, with a lack of commitment (maybe that's just the way it looks to me, but whatever), maybe we can remedy this.

I apologize for the format, it is research done in a chatroom after all.

Sabretooth does seem to be a nice guy and won't kill me...

I forgot to copy the interview I had with devon (4am go figure), but basically we had boiled his motivations down to pursuit of personal happiness.

With a little more research we can break these notions of ethics, morality, religion, society, etc. and explore what lies beneath.

I really wish I'd remembered to record the conversation with devon, if a swk mod could dig that out somehow I would be appreciative, as it's a useful piece of information regarding this subject.

Thanks for reading

The death of an insignificant PT 1.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:15 | UTC-4)
I'll have to read thw hole thing first. But it seems like you guys, achilles and everyone else there are rather closed minded and have a lot of misconceptions
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:26 | UTC-5)
There's a difference between being proud of your work and being prideful and haughty about it.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:37 | UTC-4)
I'll have to find some time for it though
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:40 | UTC-5)
Thanks RJM.
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:44:54 | UTC-7)
As long as the pride does not exceed the accomplishment it is completely justified.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:01 | UTC-5)
I'm deluded, paranoid, _and_ close-minded. :gring:
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:06 | UTC-5)
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:14 | UTC-5)
Jae failz smilies
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:45:25 | UTC-7)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:44 | UTC-4)
Seriously though, both Jae and Achilles seem to miss quite a bit and ED was just sad
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:45:46 | UTC5:30)
der sabretoothe ist heeren.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:55 | UTC-5)
Hi!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:59 | UTC-4)
Hey there toothy boy
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:01 | UTC5:30)
what up?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:46:07 | UTC-7)
Caught us at a bad time.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:08 | UTC-4)
May I ask you a question sabre?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:29 | UTC5:30)
go on
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:46:33 | UTC-5)
@RJM--there's no way to say everything in that thread.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:57 | UTC-4)
Sabre, if I was standing in front of you right now, would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:23 | UTC5:30)
most likely not
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:28 | UTC-4)
[of topic] yeah, kind did at a bad time eh? [/offtopic]
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:33 | UTC-4)
why?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:45 | UTC-7)
The middle of mah complaining.
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:48 | UTC-7)
Accursed filter
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:51 | UTC5:30)
i don't know you, and have no reason to kill you
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:59 | UTC-7)
complaining = b!tching
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:00 | UTC-4)
why not?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:48:24 | UTC5:30)
i'll be apprehended.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:48 | UTC-4)
if you couldn't be apprehended, if there were no repurcusions whatsoever
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:48:59 | UTC-7)
It would be unethical
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:09 | UTC5:30)
precisely
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:17 | UTC-4)
shhhh, stay out of it for now.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:24 | UTC-4)
I was asking you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:43 | UTC5:30)
<is there any way to fix this chat? I can't post a message without the HERE button below>
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:50:07 | UTC-4)
it's goofy like that... anyway, I was asking you why not?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:50:33 | UTC5:30)
i don't see why i would want to kill you, seeing as you could still be of use to me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:01 | UTC-4)
if I was of no use to you, no advantage in me living, would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:04 | UTC-7)
Exploit him and dipose of him when his use has run out
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:29 | UTC5:30)
perhaps. you could only be a burden on humanity.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:33 | UTC-4)
comments like devon's are the reason that whole discussion is bogus
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:46 | UTC5:30)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-4)
Neither a burden or help, just there. Would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-7)
Hey!
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:52:13 | UTC-5)
Ugh. no respect for life, eh?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:19 | UTC5:30)
*sigh*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:36 | UTC-4)
Ignore them sabre
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:45 | UTC5:30)
[thinking]why do people want to turn me into a killer?[/thinking]
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:46 | UTC-4)
Just decide wether or not to kill me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:07 | UTC-4)
I'm not turning you into a killer, you are or you arent
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:18 | UTC5:30)
i will still not kill you, because I value life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:37 | UTC-4)
Kill me or don't, no repurcussions
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:38 | UTC-4)
why would you value life?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:40 | UTC5:30)
mine and everyone else's.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:52 | UTC-4)
laggy here too
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:01 | UTC5:30)
because it is unique. you cannot live the same again.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:25 | UTC5:30)
a life is the most valuable object in human society.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:54:32 | UTC-4)
unique things are destroyed all the time and I will be destroyed eventually
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:54:54 | UTC-7)
You'd be destroying it sooner
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:01 | UTC-4)
it makes no difference if I die now
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:03 | UTC5:30)
so? you are still valuable till you are estroyed.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:55:15 | UTC-5)
Yeah, but you can make contributions to the greater community that add more value when you are working complemetarily.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:22 | UTC5:30)
even if you think you're not.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:37 | UTC-4)
*does he really need the cliches sitting on each shoulder?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC5:30)
lol
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC-4)
what would make it worht anything
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:55:59 | UTC-7)
You likely derive pleasure from living. There is no reason to violate your wishes
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC-4)
dangit ed
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC5:30)
look...
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:56:22 | UTC-7)
And you're not harming anyone
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:29 | UTC5:30)
you never chose to live. you have been given it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:47 | UTC5:30)
it is your duty to make the most of it, and that is why life is valuable.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:57:04 | UTC-4)
maybe, maybe not, I'm just standing here in front of you where no one can see you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:11 | UTC5:30)
you didn't buy it, you got it and you can'
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:25 | UTC5:30)
't sell it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:42 | UTC5:30)
you can't throw it away
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:05 | UTC-4)
what if I don't think I need it, and will stay here waiting for you to kill me until I die, would you do it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:21 | UTC5:30)
i won't.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:36 | UTC-4)
why not? I don't value it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:41 | UTC5:30)
what you think never matters, you are still a sentient human.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:58:44 | UTC-5)
ED and Jae tag-teaming ftw!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:52 | UTC-4)
what if I'm not sentient
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:05 | UTC5:30)
yes you are
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:59:09 | UTC-7)
Yay tag-teaming!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:59:17 | UTC-4)
what if I'm just a comatose shell that will die tomorrow anyway
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:35 | UTC5:30)
then i'll let you die a natural death.
[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:39)
Private message sent to ID#5
trying to accomplish something
[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:48)
Private message sent to ID#666
trying to accomplish something
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:12 | UTC-4)
i'm going to die anyway why won't you kill me? what is your sole reason for doing so?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC5:30)
i have no reason to kill you, and most importantly, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC-4)
it doesn't matter if my life is ended
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:15 | UTC-4)
what if we are stuck in the same room until after my unavoidable death
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:28 | UTC-4)
you have no better things to do
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:36 | UTC-4)
while I am alive
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:11 | UTC-4)
would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:02:26 | UTC5:30)
*sigh*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:39 | UTC-4)
no sigh, just a simple choice, and analysis
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:04 | UTC-4)
I'm just trying to get to the root of the thing
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:05 | UTC5:30)
you are either deperately suicidal or a very very persistent bugger.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:36 | UTC-4)
I'm a very vey persistant bugger who is currently fascinated by this conversation
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:40 | UTC5:30)
look
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:45 | UTC-4)
would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:04:04 | UTC-7)
Recuing someone's lifespan, no matter by how much in this instance, is still immoral
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:04:07 | UTC5:30)
how old are you, woman?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:42 | UTC-4)
ED, morals are not being taken into account here
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:50 | UTC-4)
@ST, old enough
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:02 | UTC5:30)
<blasted chat lag>
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:05:06 | UTC-7)
WTF? You can't live life without morals
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:07 | UTC-4)
I'm just trying to understand why you would or wouldn't kill me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC-4)
@ED, wether or not you can, it is not being taken into account here, please don't be sarcastic either
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC5:30)
?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:46 | UTC5:30)
alright, then
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:57 | UTC-4)
Sabre needs no distractions
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:06 | UTC-4)
alright then what?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:27 | UTC5:30)
yeah
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:34 | UTC-4)
yeah what?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:45 | UTC5:30)
so, if I killed you, what purpose would that serve?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:55 | UTC-4)
none
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:00 | UTC5:30)
wait a sec, you annoying bugger, there's a lag!
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:19 | UTC5:30)
none, so what is the point in me killing you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:31 | UTC-4)
okay I'll wait for you to catch up..
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:48 | UTC5:30)
none. that means I could do better stuff, like ponder the meaning of life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:49 | UTC-4)
there is no point, you may simply decide wether or not to do it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:10 | UTC5:30)
which IS a better thing to do than kill somebody as useless as you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:08:35 | UTC-4)
We are locked in a room, inescapable until such a time as I die (you will live either way)
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:56 | UTC5:30)
i'd rather live without blood on my hands.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:07 | UTC-4)
why?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:20 | UTC5:30)
well
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:22 | UTC-4)
it's just meaningless
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:41 | UTC5:30)
well, that works either ways
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:57 | UTC5:30)
if it's meaningless, it serves no point to kill you or not
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:03 | UTC-4)
you could kill me without any repurcussions and I would forgive you before I die so that you would be clean, would you do it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:16 | UTC5:30)
that means that I have a perfect 50:50 chance of killing you or not.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:29 | UTC5:30)
I pick the other 50, that simple.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:40 | UTC-4)
no, the chance is 100% that you will do whatever you do
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:48 | UTC-4)
which 50 and why?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:00 | UTC-4)
the why is what we are after here
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:02 | UTC5:30)
the 50 that is NOT killing you.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:26 | UTC5:30)
it matters just as much as killing you, so not killing you will not make a difference.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:49 | UTC-4)
so, if there is no difference, why choose the one over the other
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:06 | UTC5:30)
because you can't choose both.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:20 | UTC-4)
have you killed anything before?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:21 | UTC5:30)
you can't not kill and kill at the same time.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:29 | UTC-4)
anything?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:47 | UTC5:30)
insects, because they were annoying me.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:12:52 | UTC-5)
Well folks, I need to sign off and try to get some sleep.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC-4)
why is this any different
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC5:30)
cya
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:03 | UTC-4)
bye jae?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-4)
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-5)
Night all!
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:14 | UTC-7)
C'mon, we hardly discussed anything!
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:22 | UTC-5)
to everyone!
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:23 | UTC5:30)
well, you didn't mention you'd be annoying me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:26 | UTC-4)
no differenc between me and an insect
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:31 | UTC-7)
Jae
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:49 | UTC-4)
I'm annoying you know, but not when you are in a state of having this choice
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:57 | UTC5:30)
i don't kill insects randomly, especially insects in a comatose shell about to die tomorrow
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:18 | UTC-4)
but you've killed, why would this be different?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:37 | UTC5:30)
i would be killing a helpless being.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:44 | UTC-4)
so
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:50 | UTC5:30)
those insects could defend themselves.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:00 | UTC5:30)
AND they were sucking my blood.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:13 | UTC-4)
no they couldn't, not the ones you stepped on without thinking
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:34 | UTC-4)
why does ths situation require any thought
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:35 | UTC5:30)
i don't recall killing them, then.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:47 | UTC5:30)
technically, I haven't killed them
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:49 | UTC-4)
you won't recall killing me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:03 | UTC5:30)
then I wouldn't know if were killing you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:11 | UTC-4)
you ended their life, therefore you are their killer
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:17 | UTC5:30)
and then I don't have a choice.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:19 | UTC-4)
you would know at the time you decide
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:32 | UTC-4)
you simply have to choose
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:43 | UTC-4)
and tell me why before you kill me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:50 | UTC5:30)
then I know I would have killed and that would negate me not remembering your death.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:17:13 | UTC5:30)
*grammar typos
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:17:25 | UTC-4)
you would not remember after the fact, only I would, and would have no ill will towards you
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:00 | UTC-4)
would you do it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:08 | UTC5:30)
well, we've been through atleast a dozen clauses till now...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:19 | UTC-4)
eh?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:37 | UTC5:30)
yep, we started with a simple would you kill me...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:48 | UTC-4)
of course
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:55 | UTC5:30)
and now we have no ill will, comatose shells, loss of memory...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:11 | UTC-4)
all leading us towards the end
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:21 | UTC5:30)
the end?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:31 | UTC-4)
your decision
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:33 | UTC5:30)
you mean your death, on my hands?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:48 | UTC-4)
no, my death at your hands, nothing on them
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:09 | UTC5:30)
i'll still not kill you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:26 | UTC-4)
why not
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:38 | UTC5:30)
my conscience would kill me.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:48 | UTC-4)
I need to know reasons and motive
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:00 | UTC-4)
your conscience couldn't remind you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:03 | UTC5:30)
eh?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:14 | UTC-4)
if it did it wouldn't matter as I forgive you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:31 | UTC5:30)
right, so i kill you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:34 | UTC-4)
no memory of the event, and forgiveness
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:42 | UTC-4)
why would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:53 | UTC5:30)
*ogod*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:01 | UTC-4)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC-4)
why would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC5:30)
i love death and slaughter
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:23 | UTC-4)
you said "right, so I kill you"
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:26 | UTC5:30)
i revel i it, it is my life. Your Death is my life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:29 | UTC-4)
really?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:38 | UTC5:30)
yep
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:57 | UTC-4)
My death isn't your life, only your pleasure in it if you so desire
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:11 | UTC-4)
are you being sarcastic or honest
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:17 | UTC-4)
because I need honesty
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:40 | UTC5:30)
sooy, i'm back
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:56 | UTC5:30)
i'll die in this chatroom, if i be honest
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:07 | UTC-4)
no you wont
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:20 | UTC-4)
maybe I will though or maybe I won't
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:25 | UTC5:30)
who are you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:35 | UTC-4)
were you being sarcstic or honest?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:43 | UTC-4)
who I am doesn't matter, only the choice
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:49 | UTC5:30)
who ARE you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:19 | UTC-4)
like I said, it doesn't matter, if you knew me it oculd influence your decision
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:43 | UTC-4)
I need you decision uninfluenced by anything external to yourself
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:56 | UTC5:30)
to be honest, i don't care about people
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:57 | UTC5:30)
they're just there, and I'm here.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:58 | UTC-4)
so you honestly kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:08 | UTC5:30)
no, i will not.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:10 | UTC-4)
out of pleasure?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:20 | UTC-4)
you were being sarcastic then?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:21 | UTC5:30)
no
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:29 | UTC5:30)
yep
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:49 | UTC-4)
so you still maintain that you will not kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:27:10 | UTC5:30)
yes
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:27:45 | UTC-4)
with all we've discussed considered, what is left to keep you from doing so?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:10 | UTC-4)
you can't use any reason we've already disqualified
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:28:23 | UTC5:30)
lemme think
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:29 | UTC-4)
please do
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:29:36 | UTC5:30)
you will die naturally. I have no reason to exert force.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:03 | UTC-4)
exersion of force makes no difference
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:15 | UTC-4)
you have all the time and energy in the world
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:20 | UTC-4)
until I die
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:30:56 | UTC5:30)
then i'd exploit this unlimited energy till you die naturally.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:13 | UTC-4)
you are well fed and exercising, you wouldn't even notice it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:31:41 | UTC5:30)
notice your death?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:54 | UTC-4)
the effort
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:21 | UTC5:30)
how long is this going to go on?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:34 | UTC-4)
the energy can't benefit you in any way other than to make my death unnoticeable
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:49 | UTC-4)
until we find out why really will or wont kill me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:57 | UTC5:30)
we aren't going anywhere, this isjust you denying all my efforts to reason.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:33:21 | UTC-4)
yes, and you diggind deeper into your reason so we can both understand it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:22 | UTC5:30)
it's not even a real conversation.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:50 | UTC5:30)
and tyhis final reason, you'll disqualify it too.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:06 | UTC-4)
maybe, let's hear it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:23 | UTC5:30)
er, no, i haven't made it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:33 | UTC5:30)
but when i do, you'll disqualify it.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:48 | UTC-4)
maybe I will maybe I will not be able to
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:35:18 | UTC5:30)
gee, how is that?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:42 | UTC-4)
there must still be some reasons left, because you haven't really killed me or not killed me yet
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:54 | UTC-4)
you've still had doubts
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:36:37 | UTC-4)
otherwise you'd have chosen one, verified your reason for doing so and never second guessed it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:38 | UTC5:30)
look i gotta go take a bath now
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:58 | UTC5:30)
see you later
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:37:02 | UTC-4)
oh, okay, anyone else there who would like to continue this cnversation


The Binary Theory of Life: Inside the box = bad... Outside the box = good...
Sanity is the highest form of oppression.

Last edited by REDJOHNNYMIKE; 04-05-2007 at 05:06 AM.
REDJOHNNYMIKE is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 05:15 AM   #96
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.
Actually, you're the one that brought up Hitler, therefore you lose. The moving goalpost kills its maker
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 07:31 AM   #97
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
So why isn't this topic dead yet?

A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an ******* about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems. The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 11:19 AM   #98
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.

@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow.
In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves." Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws." We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place. There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was. I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them. Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions.

And moving on from that....
You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends. That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil.

Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation. I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code. Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it.

@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior. If the woman had been an atheist in an atheist culture, she undoubtedly would have substituted some highly regarded political figure as the person telling her to kill her children "Kim Jong Il made me do it because he was afraid they wouldn't be good Communists". The use of religion is cases like Andrea Yates is incidental to their real problem, which is schizophrenia. You can't use religion as an excuse in those cases since they are entirely incapable because of the mental illness of making any kind of appropriate judgments, moral or otherwise.

And that's enough musings for the time being.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 01:43 PM   #99
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
So why isn't this topic dead yet?
To my knoweldge: Godwin's Law states that if someone, anyone bring up Nazis, the debate has offically degenerated to a flame war. Therefore, the topic is as good as dead, it only takes time for people to understand it and leave.

You know, now I understand why HerbieZ hates these sort of serious topics. I'm going to start up a topic that won't start up such firestorm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 03:42 PM   #100
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
So why isn't this topic dead yet?
Maybe Godwin's Law really isn't a law (see: Murphy's Law, etc).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an ******* about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems.
This sentiment has been expressed several times within this thread. To the best of my knowledge, no name-calling has taken place here, so bringing it up again seems to be something of a red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded.
In endeavors that are based on reasons rather than faith, such challenges are not only permitted but encouraged. If you would prefer not to have your beliefs challenged, then perhaps the best way to avoid bad feelings would be not to voice them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow.
Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves."
I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

Please ask your pastor why God would have felt the need to acquiesce on slavery if he omnipotent, omniscient, and the true source of morality. Also, ask him why slavery is still alive and well today and why we didn't get an updated version of the bible when he decided that slavery wasn't ok anymore. In fact, ask him how it is that we know slavery isn't ok anymore. Please let me know what he says.

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws."
I'm suppose to want to worship someone like this why?

I've responded to this before, so I'll only summarize here: No one waits until their children are teenagers to start teaching them moral behavior.

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place.
How can you say that? Someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes in this country (I'd hate to see what the world-wide stats look like). One out of every four women have been sexually abused in their lifetime. Frequently by someone that they know. These are not "old issues" that don't apply to our modern culture. This is happening right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was.
First, Christ is a character in story (unless you have some historical evidence that shows otherwise). Second, what about God's love?

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

Mt 5:14 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus did not argue anything from the OT. He didn't outlaw slavery. He didn't end the subjugation of women.

Mt 10:34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Jesus doesn't sound like a harbinger of peace to me.

At this point, you'll probably want to accuse me of cherry-picking and then go cherry-pick some of the "good" verses to show me that I'm wrong (Luke 2:14, John 14:37, John 16:33, Acts 10:36...). Unfortunately, all this will accomplish will be to further show that the Bible contradicts itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them.
The Code of Hammurabi does not claim to be the doctrine of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions.
And here I thought Constantine did that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends.
Actaully Jae, fascism is precisely what that is.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

There are fascist regimes that are not atheistic. There are atheistic societies that aren't fascist. Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny. One does not need to be an atheist to convince oneself that their moral ideologies are superior. In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now.

If anything an atheist is more likely to examine their morals than a theistic person. Why would you need to question right and wrong if God (or your pastor) is right there to tell you what right and wrong are? What if what God (or your pastor) told you was moral wasn't really moral? In other words, what if your position had no foundation in the study of ethics (i.e. same-sex marriage, abortion, ESCR)? Can you form an opposing argument for any of those examples that doesn't (eventually) invoke God or religion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil.
I agree 1000% with your sentiment but not your wording. Let me rephrase:

"That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of 'right' with which to decide what is 'wrong'"

Yes, Jae. I couldn't agree more. So let's get rid of the dogmatic institution of religion which claims to have absolute authority on right and wrong (and thereby eliminate the basis for opposing claims of 'absolute truth') and instead adopt a reasoned system of morals based on rational thought. I think that's a splendid idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation.
That's an interesting theory. So what about non-religious people that aren't raised in the U.S. or in Judeo-Christian societies? What's the basis for their moral behavior? Buddhists? Jains? This is a very important question. I would appreciate it a great deal if you made the time to answer it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code.
Why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it.
Actually, we know no such thing. "good" and "evil" are concepts that we are indoctrinated to accept. "Right" and "wrong" have some basis in empiricism and would be a much better set of benchmarks to adopt.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 04:46 PM   #101
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior.
I believe you are missing my point, which is that the word of God can be used to justify perfectly immoral actions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 05:34 PM   #102
SykoRevan
Junior Member
 
SykoRevan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Somewhere with ice cubes and alot of pudding.
Posts: 313
This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.

SykoRevan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 07:17 PM   #103
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Perhaps the moderators would see fit to break the conversation out into a new thread (?).

I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae

Might as well keep it in Kavar's Corner.

Sorry--I meant at which post number in this thread do you want to make the break. --Jae

I would defer to the OP.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-05-2007 at 10:23 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 08:08 PM   #104
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.
Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is. The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae
Uh...wha? Whatever, doesn't bother me.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 08:20 PM   #105
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is.
The term itself is not "wrong". "Delusion" and its derivatives are actual words that are used to describe actual conditions. If someone was (literally) psychotic, which word would you use to describe that person's mental state? If you're were using it as a slur, that would be one thing, but if the person really is psychotic, then it's something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others.
I can't speak for all atheists, but I will say that you're more than welcome to attempt to poke holes in my philosophies. In fact, I've made several open invitations. If the evidence points somewhere else or if my thinking is flawed, then I can only benefit from such discussions. I'm pretty sure that I won't turn into a pillar of salt if shown to be incorrect
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 08:20 PM   #106
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly

I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

Please ask your pastor why God .... Please let me know what he says.

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive.

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now.
Just what are your intentions with these comments? You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked. Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer. I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. I've been working my butt off trying to read Zacharias (who you'd appreciate but who is a very heavy read), Geisler, and Lewis, on top of learning about the history and development of atheism on something more than the initial superficial read I'd given it 20 years back when I was looking at it then, and picking up info on Hume, Kant, Sartre, and so forth, because philosophy was one of the few courses I _didn't_ take when I was an undergrad. I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 08:44 PM   #107
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Just what are your intentions with these comments?
My intention is address the fact that I'm no longer debating with just you. Apparently you've invited a 3rd set of opinions into our discussions (which is fine). Additionally, you prefaced your comments in such a way as to make me think that you were simply relaying the advice you were given. Nothing more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked.
I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer.
No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. <snip>
I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability.
If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.

I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.

Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.

EDIT: I just reread what you quoted. The "mental gymnastics" part was a dig, but for him, not you. Also, I stand behind the "glass houses" comment.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2007, 10:20 PM   #108
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by SykoRevan
This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.
As I put it in the first post in this thread and this morning, if you're Atheist, you're Atheist, being a jerk about it will only serve to make it look bad. The same for religion. If that's all you're looking for then I think that covers it.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 04-05-2007 at 11:09 PM. Reason: language
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2007, 01:57 AM   #109
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.
I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).
Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously? I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections. It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.
I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.
I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily.

While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.
I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either).


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2007, 03:26 AM   #110
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously?
My hypothesis: Because you think that you're right and I'm wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections.
With all due respect, I can't think of any examples where you have done this. From my perspective, all of my key point have been glossed over or ignored, hence why they keep coming up over and over again. You are very good at presenting your perspective, however no one has been willing to truly engage mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought.
That may be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily.
Faith in atheism is contradictory.
I have stated repeatedly I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads. That's not just lip-service.

I think that you assume that I'm not familiar with religious doctrine or Christianity specifically. I've been a Christian and my experience has been that it offers no answers.

It seems to me that if Atheism is so obviously wrong and misguided, it could quickly be derailed with a few sound arguments from religion. Thus far, none have come. From my perspective, this is because it has none to offer. If you have one, I'll be happy to hear it, however you've yet to present any. This isn't an insult, rather an observation.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing more about what it is that theism provides that atheism cannot satisfactorily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way.
Fair enough. For the most part, I thought my questions were pretty much "what do you think" type questions, however I can see where that may not actually be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either).
I appreciate it. Thank you.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2007, 12:45 PM   #111
Gargoyle King
Veteran
 
Gargoyle King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In My Own Little World!
Posts: 895
Wink My Views

At the end of the day - i feel that whether someone believes in a God or nor is irrelevant, i feel that its best to concentrate on how we live our lives and how we treat each other. I'll be frank - i myself am Atheist but i still respect people if they believe in a God as that is their choice in life.
Gargoyle King is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 02:25 PM   #112
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
I apologise for the delay in replying, I was on retreat over Easter. Here is the post I wrote beforehand in its entirety, but could not post due to login problems (we apologise for the inconvenience):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.
Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler
Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography? At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree! Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.
I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.
My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative. Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break. They were atheist, and presumably had some morality. Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear.

It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted.

Please note I will be away until Sunday.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 03:41 PM   #113
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein.
Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did.

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography?
Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree!
The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly.
It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes.
Cue aforementioned contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative.
And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break.
Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
They were atheist, and presumably had some morality.
I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear.
Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted.
According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.

What of Norway?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 06:06 PM   #114
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,782
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did.

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?
He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.
I see no correlation between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".
I suggest you check your dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.
No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Cue aforementioned contradiction.
I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.
Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?
My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.
I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
What of Norway?
Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 06:10 PM   #115
Scyrone
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11
Quote:
Atheism isn't a belief... it is a lack thereof.
I would have to disagree on this matter. Everything is a belief, but not everything is a religion. Atheism is the belief of no religion or any superiority of being in mankind or in the Universe for that matter.

Quote:
Some believe they have the right and duty to persecute religion and that gives Atheism a bad name.
The thing is that the majority of anti-Atheists persecute everyone who does not believe what they do. This is completely natural in idea, but unnatural in how it goes down. Personally, I feel there are a lot of Christians who believe that since they think they are right they have every right to persecute, as long as they are not persecuted back.

Quote:
But, I think it is likely that Atheism will soon take over the world. There is no need for God, and we will finally be waking up to that realization. Soon, the shackles of religion will be broken, and all religions will die. This is my view, and it is based on the fact that they approach the issue in a logical manner, and they got the aid of Science.
Even though I am a strong Satanist (LaVey Satanist; basically extreme Atheism), I do not believe this statement is true. We have the logical aid of science, but the majority of people now days ignore science completely and focus on numbers, e.g. 80% of Americans are Christians so it must be true. Look at American principles today, basically anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-anything-against-God. The way the world is going I think that Christianity will soon takeover almost the majority of everything. All because of belief. No true religion is fact, only few are. Those who base religion of the now and the human-life are true; not science, not belief, but reality. Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.

Quote:
"persecution of religion"
Persecution of religion is more of denying the existence of any other belief other than your own (or religion for that matter), there is nothing wring with it, but sometimes the ways it goes down is completely intolerable to the persecuted.

Quote:
If you're saying that theists aren't harming anyone by being theists and should be left alone, you're wrong. American theism is influencing our ability to prepare our children for the future by introducing pseudo-science such as Intelligent Design and working to vilify legitimate science such as evolutionary theory. By far the largest voting group is Evangelical, therefore they are determining which elected officials make it into public office and which agenda items are put on the front burner. The list goes on and on.
I would say so far this is the most accurate quote of how America is portrayed now.

Quote:
Islam is arguably the fastest growing religion in the world and they are the ones churning out terrorists by the dozen. Muslims with college educations go to their deaths "knowing" that their actions will a) kill Allah's enemies and b) ensure their place in paradise. We might say, "well that's ridiculous", but then again we're Muslim-atheists.
Well, not necessarily. Islam is not what the Radical extremists of Iraq and Iran make it out to be. Truly, Islam is peaceful. I think this is a bad portrayal of Islamic belief.

Honestly, I just saw how long the thread was, so of course I am not going to look at every post.

I think that the way Atheists are perceived is an abomination to all of mankind. For a people who try to promote the human way of living and how to make humanity greater, they get too much criticism. Do people not see that they are helping all of us with there ways? If you dislike Atheists and believe they are wrong then tell me how your beliefs make us better? Tell me how Christianity will help us? Will there be another 15-18 Crusades sprouting from Christianity? (or has that already started on the grounds of Iraq, and North Korea?)
Scyrone is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 07:37 PM   #116
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
North Korea has nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them. There are more grounds to attack them than Iraq, but it hasn't. Unless Kim Jong declares Jihad or a war on believers religion can be safely ruled out as a motive.

Being intolerent of religion, Anti-theism, I think that gets a lot of backs up. But it goes the other way as well. I don't want to hear you preaching Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Atheism to me. I don't care if you're peddling Jedi beliefs, I'm not interested. Same goes for politics, I don't care if you're Democratic, Republican, Labor, Liberal, an extreme Greenie, a fence riding wuss or any combination of the above. If you're any of those things, great, you are, and I apologise if my words upset you at all. You're not going to do yourself any favors bringing it up at every opportunity. I think that's part of the problem with Atheists in that some do beat people into the ground about it and are arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standered, egomaniacal, Jae can probably direct you to an example but unless she does I don't think it's my place to. The same could be said of those who believe in religion, I may have even seen such cases, but whenever the topic comes up the no right to belief Atheist stance is something I've always seen stick out and I think others can say the same thing.

This is a warning for flaming--this sounds way too much like an attack on Scyrone, and even if it's not it's general name-calling and definitely not in the friendly spirit of this forum. Keep it civil, please. --Jae

I didn't mean it to be, and I apologise.

Don't edit moderator edits or delete warnings, either. --Jae

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 04-10-2007 at 12:37 AM.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 09:10 PM   #117
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions.
Really? How? Isn't killing promoted in the Bible? Aren't there grounds for anti-semitism in the NT? So how would Hitler's actions contradict Catholicism? Or is it more likely that they contradict your view of Catholicism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I see no correlation between the two.
The correlation is that one that excuses themselves from tough questions should not presume to act as though they have a superior intellect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I suggest you check your dictionary.
Gladly. Which word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context.
The context as you see it. Let me try this another way? Do you believe that Usama bin Laden really believes in Islam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.
Ok, then which religion did he subscribe to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily.
So in other words, because some men you've never met said so. The Pope in certainly not infallable, however I do acknowledge that you've been conditioned to think so because of your religious traditions. If you have some evidence to support your claim, I'd be more than happy to have a look at it.

IF Hitler was a Catholic, then he would have been yet one more person that cherry-picked from the Bible to support his or her viewpoint. Perhaps if the Bible were less contradictory, such actions wouldn't be possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.
I'm sorry. Who here is arguing for moral relativism? My argument (as is the case for most atheists and some moral philosopers) is that absolute morality does not come from God. In many cases the morals that are attributed to God are found lacking compared to morals that can be derived for reasoned examination of ethics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one.
Agreed! Hence why I'm an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there.
I will not be moving the goalpost, sir. I asked for an example of an atheist state run amok and you offered a 99% Muslim country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?
Yes, the Norway where only 36% of the population considers themselves religious compared to the 46% that consider themselves non-religions (with an additional 9% explicitly atheistic). Any Norwegian mobs looking to take over the world that we should be concerned about? How's their murder rate? Adult literacy? All I know is that they've held the top spot on the UN Human Development Index for the last 7 years.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 09:15 PM   #118
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Here's something I wanted to offer up. A friend of mine had his cat operated on, his leg had to be amputated, and he was praying daily for it to be given a good quality of life. Well the cat's gone missing, it was locked up, there was no way it could have escaped, there's nothing at all to show that it did escape or is somehow hiding. Maybe, just maybe, God answered the prayer and had done something to benefit the cat. Can Atheists in their infinite wisdom provide any other explanation?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 09:31 PM   #119
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scyrone
Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.
Too much sometimes IMO. Some of the Satanic Rules sound more greedy than simply placing importance on the self.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satanic Rule #4
If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satanic Rule #11
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
LeVayen Satanism despite the name has some okay ideas (mainly the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ones), but some of them are very harsh IMO.

I would hesitate to call it true Atheism - Atheism is nothing but a disbelief in God (or Gods) without any other philosophies. Even the idea of living a good life and helping others which many Atheists believe isn't unique to their non-religion. That LeVayen Satanists also view Satan a prominent symbol makes them even less similar (as Atheism has no such things).

Satanism is a lot more like Objectivism or individualism IMO. If you've read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand you can see a ton of similarities between their philosophies and LeVey's (who he said influenced his writings considerably).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2007, 10:53 PM   #120
SykoRevan
Junior Member
 
SykoRevan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Somewhere with ice cubes and alot of pudding.
Posts: 313
I agree with Emperor Devon more than I do with Scyrone, especially about Satanism being an extreme Atheism. Although I cannot agree with either when it comes to whether Atheism is a belief or a nonbelief. In my opinion, it is like the "glass half empty/glass half full" philosophy, in that it depends on the view of the Atheist whether they simply do not believe in any religion, or as I see it, a belief that there is no God. And any comparison between Atheism and Satanism is, quite simply, misplaced (and in my opinion, the Atheist equivalent of blasphemy), as the two are completely different. The only people I have heard saying that Atheism and Satanism are alike are religious people, including clergy and my own parents, who's view was obscured, and who I frankly thought were ignorant. Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn.

SykoRevan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > The Theism/Atheism Discussion

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.